Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 22, 2005, 1:08 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Okay. I love film. Yeah I read the comparisons and saw the test patterns, and I wouldn't part with my FZ1v2. But man, there's just something about film. Mainly - to me, it's the that the larger focal plane enables a pleasing, shallower dof you simple can't get on digital. It's especially better for portraits. I'm tired of everything being i focus. These are a couple scans - nothing special. But do you see a different aesthetic.

Below is a scan of a print made with an el cheapo 100% manual 35mm Vivitar (actually Ricoh is the OEM) of my son taken when he was a new born. (Still got that old cam. Gave it to my daugher...)

So, call me crazy, but instead of buying a DSLR, I bought a medium format film SLR, and a few nice used Zeiss lenses - wide, portrait, etc. And a scanner (Epson 3170 - $125 bucks refurb'd, including shipping direct from Epson... I'm blown away from the quality of the scans, especially from negatives).

Do you see a different aesthetic you can't get with digital? It's more apparent in prints.


Attached Images
 
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 22, 2005, 1:15 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

This is a scan from a medium format negative using actual and for true black and white film Kodak Tri-X 100 speed 120 roll film, taken with a 50 year old Agfa "Ventura Delux 66" folder camera. To focus, I used a 50 year old 3rd party uncoupled rangefinder attachment, and an old Sekonic light meter I had lying around for the last 20 years.

Again, nothing special, just a family snap - kids with the granparents, taken on the front lawn. The little boy is the little guy in the picture above. Man, time flys...

Do these have a different aesthetic than digital - one that's in some ways more pleasing (though it requires a bit more work...) Or, am I begging the question?
Attached Images
 
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 1:53 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
dengar69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 123
Default

Take some comparison shots so we can all be the judge. :-)
dengar69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 2:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 265
Default

well in my opinion only advantage of medium and large format film cameras are the possibility of printing really big pictures. other than that, digital's where its at. now of course, digital is more expensive, but you can get the same dof with a dSLR than with any type of film camera. problem is you got to go to be the big dogs. you want great dof? get a EOS 1Ds Mark II...it will give you the same focal length as a 35mm dSLR will and same quality due to its huge sensor and 16MP capacity. and the fact that digital lets you review your pictures in the spot is a very useful aspect that only digital has. also, you can take a 8GB CFII Ultra card to go with your EOS camera and take hundreds and hundres of pictures that you would need several rolls of film with a film camera. furthermore, CF is extremely durable, supporting rough treatment, extreme temperatures and water. Film can take neither...

so in my opinion, digital's just as good as long as you got the money.
Max_Pain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 6:49 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

Sounds like fun Nick thats what its about its also a good way to teach young people the basics,film has more dynamic range it also has a very fine uniform grain which is not objectionable,sensor noise is irregular and ugly (FZ size sensors but not visible in small prints)
A drawback with the FZXX sensor (bayer type) is if you shoot either RED or BLUE objects and either color predominates to dont get the full camera resolution you get as little as 25% (with RED) its because of the RGB filters on the sensor,whites give the best res. or any full mix of RGB, film gives full resolution in any situation.
Film is still used for satelite surveilance photography (up to 16" wide special Kodak roll film for ultra high res. work digital can't come close.

The family shot has a quality about it,the Epson scanner is doing as good a job as a drum scanner.

DOF is controllable with the film SLR.

(TRIX 120 film is easy to develop with D76 in a spiral loading tank at home)

The scanned image can be adjusted in PS and then printed using a dedicated B&W Inkjet setup on nice paper or in color if its a color neg., FAR easier then the traditional wet darkroom setup.

With film cameras you take a lot more care in composing and taking shots (unlike one person in the Panasonic DPR forum who boasted having taken 27,500 shots with their FZ20 in 6months)
There is nothing wrong with old cameras often they have superb optics and are really well built (not plastic)and are cheap to by.
I sold my Mamiya C3 Twin lense reflex system for not much $'s last year it was too heavy I really wanted a Hasselbad 500C or Zenza Bronica but could never afford them.


boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 7:13 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Max_Pain wrote:
Quote:
now of course, digital is more expensive, but you can get the same dof with a dSLR than with any type of film camera. problem is you got to go to be the big dogs. you want great dof? get a EOS 1Ds Mark II...it will give you the same focal length as a 35mm dSLR will and same quality due to its huge sensor and 16MP capacity. So in my opinion, digital's just as good as long as you got the money.
Oh... there's absolutey NO doubt that the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II is a fine, fine camera at $7999.99 body only Amazon price. :G I'm not so sure that it will give you the same dof as MF film because, as large as the sensor is, assuming it's = to the size of 35mm film, MF film is around 4X the size, and has (depending who you ask) the equiv of 48 megapixels. No Kodak makes a medium format digital back that goes for $14,000...

But I guess what I saying is if you want to talk optimized image quality, not factoring "convenience" and "immediacy" - digital has that all over film. From a pure "bang for the buck" in terms of pure image quality, scanned medium format film is the way to go. The new flatbeds do a fantastic job imo, and go between 100 to 300 bucks. For my medium format system - $150 for a used camera, in a system which includes Zeiss glass: one of the finest portrait lenses ever made, the 180mm Jena Sonnar, one of the most renound wide angle lenses ever produced - a 50mm Zeiss Flektagon, an amazing Arsat 30mm fisheye, and an excellent 80mm prime lens, for around $500... Not $10, $12, $14, $16,000(!!!)...

For the price I'll sacrifice the convenience for the image quality.

Again, I'm not knocking digital. Own one, love it. But scanned medium format gives you the the best pure image quality and a more pleasing aesthetic. You get the best of both worlds... the high resolution of film and the control of the digital darkroom.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 7:41 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

boyzo wrote:
Quote:
Sounds like fun Nick
Absolutely! Lots of fun.

Quote:
thats what its about its also a good way to teach young people the basics,film has more dynamic range it also has a very fine uniform grain which is not objectionable,sensor noise is irregular and ugly (FZ size sensors but not visible in small prints)
Yes! And software does a better job removing film grain without effecting sharpness. Film grain is grain, sensor noise is noise - like blurry TV reception.

Quote:
A drawback with the FZXX sensor (bayer type) is if you shoot either RED or BLUE objects and either color predominates to dont get the full camera resolution you get as little as 25% (with RED) its because of the RGB filters on the sensor,whites give the best res. or any full mix of RGB, film gives full resolution in any situation.
Plus there's no chromatic aberations - purple fringing and so forth, since film doesn't interpolate the colors, as you say. It's all there in the emulsion.

Quote:
The family shot has a quality about it
Intangibles - especially in print. It just has a different aesthetic.

Quote:
The Epson scanner is doing as good a job as a drum scanner.
You know, John, this is my first scanner. $125 shipped, an Epson 3170. It has optical (no interpolation) resolution of 3200x6,400, which is the equivalent of 20 megapixels. I am simply amazed by the thing. It really exceeded my expectations.

Quote:
DOF is controllable with the film SLR.
That's a BIG part of photography that you have very little control over with small sensor'd digicams.

Quote:
(TRIX 120 film is easy to develop with D76 in a spiral loading tank at home)
Right now, I'm having it processed at a lab... $7.50 US a roll, just negatives. I intend to set up a darkroom to process negatives. Then it will cost pennies.

Quote:
The scanned image can be adjusted in PS and then printed using a dedicated B&W Inkjet setup on nice paper or in color if its a color neg., FAR easier then the traditional wet darkroom setup.
That's exactly what I have. All reasonable priced stuff. I can't recommend enough MIS black and white ink tanks made for the Epson C86 printer. The B&W's that come out of that thing are perfect. As good if not better than chemical process, and you have all the control of Photoshop. It's the best of both worlds, and doesn't break the bank.

Quote:
With film cameras you take a lot more care in composing and taking shots (unlike one person in the Panasonic DPR forum who boasted having taken 27,500 shots with their FZ20 in 6months) There is nothing wrong with old cameras often they have superb optics and are really well built (not plastic)and are cheap to by.
Case in point. Agfa MF folder - 50 years old. A little TLC, and the thing takes excellent pics. My $100 Vivitar 35mm is 15 years old, still snapping away. There's 50,000 Pentax K lenses for the thing - great optics, reasonable on the used market.

Yes... I enjoyed taking my camera out, 12 shots, thinking rather than snapping and deleting, snapping and deleting. It's just more fun. More thought involved, and therefore more engaging.

Quote:
I sold my Mamiya C3 Twin lense reflex system for not much $'s last year it was too heavy I really wanted a Hasselbad 500C or Zenza Bronica but could never afford them.
I could only dream. I got a Kiev 60. They're notoriously quirky but mine seems to be in decent condition. Talk about a tank! [/quote]

In a nutshell, John, I think we agree film is not dead. Right now it still gives you the best image quality for the price - especially medium format. Scanned film gives you the best of both worlds. Film's resolution and image quality and the control of the digital darkroom. Equivalent image quality still costs $10's of thousands of dollars in the digital domain.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 9:42 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

Looks like you're on to something. Digital is fun, but so is film. I scan quite a bit and use PS to correct and modify. As you say the best of both worlds. Th Epson scanner you have is a good choice. Here's a link to some software that works great for scanners and is well thought of by a lot of folks. There's a demo and your Epson is on the supported scanner list. Have fun and post some of your stuff.

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast/en.html
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 9:58 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

Film IS fun...

The problem is that you need more than a flatbed scanner when you start to enjoy it. You will need a darkroom, and chemicals; negative chemicals, color chemicals, slide chemicals, toners, ugh, the list goes on! Film dryers, enlargers, dishes, trays, heaters, what have you done? And you will find yourself changing rolls of film only partially exposed because you needed a different ISO.

Then (because Panny's OIS spoiled you) you will be buying big Canon Image Stabilized lenses, and your camera case will look like a suitcase.

All of a sudden $7999 for a nice digital SLR plus a new copy of PhotoShop looks pretty darn good, and no mess, no need to add a room on to your house.

But film IS fun!
trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 11:09 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
pappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 827
Default

your right Nick im no pro but i can tell the difference between the 2 .Digital has come a long way tho. I bought a brand new N80 with a 2x mag and a set of telephoto and closeup lens for $1200.00 about 2 years ago .But it was more of a burdenfor me to use because of my inexperience ,so the camera is still brand new :lol:.I think i took around 500 pics with it and maybe 100 keepers :?. Its been in the original boxes for a year now. Then the Pana FZ20 came along now im hooked :G
pappy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:03 PM.